DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/06/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the followings must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
I. the at least one flow control device is disposed downstream of both (i) the heat exchanger in the first circuit and (ii) the second circuit as claimed in claim 1.
II. the vapor-injection compressor as claimed in claim 2
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 2-18 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In the preamble of each of claims 2-18; “The method of Claim …” should read “The method of claim …”; with the word “claim” written with lower case “c”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 12 and 16-18 is/are objected to for their dependency on an objected base claim.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a. flow control device in at least claim 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Flow control device is interpreted to cover at least a valve as per para [0044] of applicant specification, and equivalent thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 calls for the limitation “wherein at least one flow control device is disposed downstream of the heat exchanger in the first circuit and/or the second circuit” in lines 3-5; which limitation is indefinite as it is unclear if the limitation is referring to:
I. the at least one flow control device is disposed downstream of the heat exchanger in the first circuit;
II. the at least one flow control device is disposed downstream of the heat exchanger in the second circuit; or
III. the at least one flow control device is disposed downstream of both (i) the heat exchanger in the first circuit and (ii) the second circuit.
The limitation is also indefinite as it is unclear as to how the at least one flow control device is disposed downstream of both (i) the heat exchanger in the first circuit and (ii) the second circuit. Reference to the specification does not provide clarity as to how this is achieved. To illustrate, the specification appears to reference the flow control device #12 provided downstream of the heat exchanger #10; but not downstream of the second circuit #16. Accordingly, the limitation above does not appear to be supported by the specification in a manner in which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the scope of the invention.
A similar issue is found with the recitation “selectively controlling the at least one flow control device to cause an accumulation of the first fluid and/or the second fluid within the heat exchanger” in claim 1. It is unclear as to how, the flow control device that is not provided on the second circuit for the second fluid is operated to cause accumulation of the second fluid within the heat exchanger.
For examination purposes, the limitations “wherein at least one flow control device is disposed downstream of the heat exchanger in the first circuit and/or the second circuit” and “selectively controlling the at least one flow control device to cause an accumulation of the first fluid and/or the second fluid within the heat exchanger” will be interpreted as “wherein at least one flow control device is disposed downstream of the heat exchanger in the first circuit” and “selectively controlling the at least one flow control device to cause an accumulation of the first fluid within the heat exchanger” so as to be consistent with applicant specification.
A similar issue is found in claim 20. Claim 20 should be addressed accordingly.
Claim 8 calls for the limitation “wherein the at least one flow control device is selectively controlled to provide a liquid free, gaseous phase first fluid to a compressor” which limitation is indefinite as the limitation attempts to define the subject-matter in terms of the result to be achieved (provide a liquid free, gaseous phase first fluid to a compressor), without any active, positive steps delimiting how this result is actually achieved. In other words, the manner in which the at least one flow control device is selectively controlled to provide a liquid free, gaseous phase first fluid to a compressor has not been specified. See MPEP 2173.05(q) - Ex parte Erlich, 3 USPQ2d 1011 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986).
Claim(s) 2-18 is/are indefinite for their dependency on an indefinite base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-11, and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu (US 20120227427 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Liu discloses a method for controlling a thermal management system (see Fig. 3), comprising:
providing a thermal management system including a heat exchanger #350 fluidly connected to a first circuit for a first fluid (see refrigerant circuit of Fig. 3) and a second circuit for a second fluid (circuit of fan #354; [0044]), wherein at least one flow control device #323 is disposed downstream of the heat exchanger in the first circuit (see Fig. 3, and arrows indicating flow of refrigerant); and
selectively controlling the at least one flow control device to cause an accumulation of the first fluid within the heat exchanger (see para [0036] & [0044]).
Regarding claim 2:
Liu further discloses wherein the first circuit includes a vapor-injection compressor (Fig. 3; [0035]).
Regarding claim 3:
Liu further discloses wherein the first fluid is a refrigerant ([0031]).
Regarding claim 4:
Liu further discloses wherein the second fluid is a coolant ([0038]: #354 supplies air. Air is a coolant).
Regarding claim 8:
Liu further discloses wherein the at least one flow control device is selectively controlled to provide a liquid free, gaseous phase first fluid to a compressor (see para [0036] & [0044]).
Note: by virtue of all the limitations required by claim being met by the prior art by Liu, Liu can be said to provide a liquid free, gaseous phase first fluid to a compressor.
Regarding claim 9:
Liu further discloses wherein in at least one operating mode of the thermal management system, an outflow rate of the first fluid and/or the second fluid from the heat exchanger is less than a respective one of an inflow rate of the first fluid and/or an inflow rate of the second fluid into the heat exchanger (see Fig. 3 and [0036]: when the flow control device #323 is positioned in a partially-closed positions as discussed in para [0036]; backflow pressure is created and reduction of an outflow rate of the first fluid from the heat exchanger occurs. This concept is known as discussed by applicant in para [0056-0057] of applicant specifications).
Regarding claim 10:
Liu further discloses wherein in at least one operating mode of the thermal management system, an outflow rate of the first fluid from the heat exchanger is less than an inflow rate of the first fluid into the heat exchanger (see Fig. 3 and [0036]: when the flow control device #323 is positioned in a partially-closed positions as discussed in para [0036]; backflow pressure is created and reduction of an outflow rate of the first fluid from the heat exchanger occurs. This concept is known as discussed by applicant in para [0056-0057] of applicant specifications).
Regarding claim 11:
Liu further discloses wherein the at least one flow control device is disposed downstream of the heat exchanger in the first circuit (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 14:
Liu further discloses wherein the at least one flow control device is disposed between the heat exchanger and a compressor in the first circuit (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 15:
Liu further discloses wherein the at least one flow control device is selectively positionable between a fully-opened position, a fully-closed position, and at least one partially-closed position between the fully-opened position and the fully-closed position (see para [0036] & [0044]).
Regarding claim 16:
Liu further discloses wherein the at least one flow control device is selectively positioned in the at least one partially-closed position to cause the accumulation of the first fluid within the heat exchanger (see Fig. 3 and [0036]: when the flow control device #323 is positioned in a partially-closed positions as discussed in para [0036]; backflow pressure is created and reduction of an outflow rate of the first fluid from the heat exchanger occurs. This concept is known as discussed by applicant in para [0056-0057] of applicant specifications).
Regarding claim 17:
Liu further discloses wherein the at least one flow control device is selectively positioned in the at least one partially-closed position when a deficiency in an outlet temperature of the second fluid from the heat exchanger in relation to a compressor speed and an expansion valve position and a system efficiency occurs (see Fig. 3 and [0036]: when the flow control device #323 is positioned in a partially-closed positions as discussed in para [0036]; backflow pressure is created and reduction of an outflow rate of the first fluid from the heat exchanger occurs. This concept is known as discussed by applicant in para [0056-0057] of applicant specifications).
The limitation “when a deficiency in an outlet temperature of the second fluid from the heat exchanger in relation to a compressor speed and an expansion valve position and a system efficiency occurs” is a contingent limitation. See MPEP 2111.04 - II. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 17 thus only requires “the at least one flow control device is selectively positioned in the at least one partially-closed position”.
Regarding claim 18:
Liu further discloses wherein the at least one flow control device is selectively position in the at least one 18795759
partially-closed position when a flow rate of the first fluid is relatively low (see Fig. 3 and [0036]: when the flow control device #323 is positioned in a partially-closed positions as discussed in para [0036]; backflow pressure is created and reduction of an outflow rate of the first fluid from the heat exchanger occurs. This concept is known as discussed by applicant in para [0056-0057] of applicant specifications).
The limitation “when a flow rate of the first fluid is relatively low” is a contingent limitation. See MPEP 2111.04 - II. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 18 thus only requires “the at least one flow control device is selectively position in the at least one partially-closed position”.
Regarding claim 19:
The subject matter claimed here is substantially similar to that of claim 10, comprising the limitations of claim 1. Thus, for sake of simplicity, conciseness, and brevity, please refer to the rejection of claim 10 above for the rejection of claim 19.
Regarding claim 20:
The subject matter claimed here is substantially similar to that of claim 1. Thus, for sake of simplicity, conciseness, and brevity, please refer to the rejection of claim 1above for the rejection of claim 20.
Liu further discloses wherein the second fluid is in thermal energy exchanger relationship with the first fluid ([0038]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 20120227427 A1).
Regarding claim 5:
Liu discloses all the limitations, except for wherein the heat exchanger is a plate heat exchanger.
However, the usage of plate heat exchangers is well known in the art (official notice).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Liu with the heat exchanger being a plate heat exchanger.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have created high turbulence; thereby allowing for efficient heat transfer with high thermal performance. Other benefits include compact design and easy maintenance.
Regarding claim 6:
Liu discloses all the limitations, except for wherein the heat exchanger is a chiller.
However, the usage of chiller heat exchanger is well known in the art (official notice).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Liu with the heat exchanger being a chiller.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have lowered operating costs, provided smaller footprint, and quieter operations.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 20120227427 A1) in view of Lifson (US 20100095693 A1).
Regarding claim 7:
Liu discloses all the limitations, except for wherein the at least one flow control device is selectively controlled depending on a compressor speed, an expansion valve position, and/or an outlet temperature of the second fluid.
In the same field of endeavor, Lifson taches that it is known to control a suction modulating valve #30 based on the load operation for the refrigerant system ([0013]). A compressor speed and an expansion valve position are clearly known variables of load operations of a refrigerant system.
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Liu with the at least one flow control device is selectively controlled depending on a compressor speed, an expansion valve position, and/or an outlet temperature of the second fluid; since this concept was known in the art as discussed by Lifson.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have improved operational efficiency at least by providing optimum pressure inside the compressor shell as suggested by Lifson (abstract).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 20120227427 A1) in view of Yamashita (US 20140260405 A1).
Regarding claim 13:
Liu discloses all the limitations, except for wherein the at least one flow control device is a two-way valve.
However, the usage of a two-way valve as a flow control device is well known in the art (see Yamashita; Fig. 2, [0256]).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Liu with the at least one flow control device being a two-way valve; in a similar manner as taught by Yamashita.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have provided precise modulation of the refrigerant; thereby, improving system efficiency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Senf (US 11073313 B2), Lifson (US 8240161 B2), Lifson (US 7997092 B2), Lifson (US 20100058799 A1), Lifson (US 20100011792 A1), Taras (US 20060090502 A1), Lifson (US 20060090503 A1), Schlotterbeck (US 3698204 A), and Lifson (US 8359873 B2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIONEL W NOUKETCHA whose telephone number is (571)272-8438. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri: 08:00 AM - 04:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LIONEL NOUKETCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763